[ Page 5649 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 5649

West Coast General Hospital deficit. Mr. Skelly –– 5650

Adolescent psychiatric unit. Mr. Barnes –– 5650

Queen Alexandria Hospital for Children. Mr. Blencoe –– 5650

Shortage of phsyiotherapists in Prince George. Mrs. Dailly –– 5650

Hospital budgets. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5650

Steve Fonyo run. Mr. MacWilliam –– 5650

Charter of Rights Amendment Act (Bill 33). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 5651

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 30). Second reading

Mr. MacWilliam –– 5652

Mr. Lockstead –– 5653

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 5654

Division –– 5656

Workplace Act (Bill 4). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 5656

Mr. Gabelmann –– 5656

Mr. Cocke –– 5656

Hon. Mr. Segarty –– 5656

Division –– 5656

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 17: minister's office –– 5659

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1985

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to this House my constituency assistant, Delores Pfister from Powell River, and the constituency assistant to our MP, Mr. Ray Skelly, Brenda De Graag from Powell River. I ask the House to join me in welcome.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery today are some members representing the College of Dental Surgeons: Dr. John Silver, the president; Dr. Bob Hicks, chairman of the government liaison committee; Mr. Ken Croft, the managing director; and Mr. Roy Thordarson, the registrar. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MS. SANFORD: None of the MLAs in this chamber, I think, would survive without the able assistance of the constituency representatives whom we have working in our constituency offices throughout the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have today a number of these constituency assistants sitting in the galleries, and on behalf of our caucus I would like to introduce all of them and to ask the House to make them very welcome. They are: Gwen Ranger, Sharon Prescott, Gayle Ballard, Betty Hlookoff, Barb MacPherson, Brenda De Graag, Lynn Aikman, Norma Randle, June Jensen, Shirley Cherwak, Marguerite Robinson, Sheila McFarlane, Jim Hamilton, Dawn Black, Bev Bairstow and Delores Pfister.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your House today is a person whom I'd like to introduce. After I've introduced him.... It's amazing that he has time to be here, but I have the honour of introducing to the House Mr. Norman Young, who's a member of the Canada Council, chairman of the Vancouver Civic Theatres Board, a member of the Vancouver Centennial Commission, a member of the Vancouver Archives Advisory Committee, former chairman of the B.C. Arts Board and a member of the World's Worst Art Auction Committee. I'd ask the House to make him welcome while he's here.

MR. ROSE: I would ask the House to please welcome this afternoon school trustee Lorna Morford, along with four friends from Coquitlam and five Delta residents who are here today to meet with their MLAs and express their concerns about the state of education in the province.

MR. PARKS: I'd like to join the hon. members for Comox and Coquitlam-Moody in welcoming two members who are in your gallery: first of all, Mrs. Dawn Black, one of my constituents; and, although I haven't seen her this afternoon, greetings to trustee Lorna Morford from Coquitlam. I share this with my colleagues from the opposite side.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce to the House, from the galleries, the constituency secretary of the dean of the House, whose name was inadvertently missed from the list, Mrs. Lorraine Morris.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has lost over $20 million over the last eight months because the Social Credit government insists on charging user fees in violation of the Canada Health Act. Will the Minister of Health advise this House that he and his government are now prepared to abolish those fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a correction: in compliance with the Canada Health Act, not in violation of the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you for that usual answer which does not deal with my question. I would like to continue and ask the minister once again — I don't think I need a supplementary, Mr. Speaker — my question: will he and his government now abolish these user fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If I had my choice, Mr. Speaker, I'd rather abolish the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. Are the Minister of Health and his government not concerned about the loss of revenue to the province of British Columbia because of his and his government's stubbornness?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the government is concerned when any senior government chooses to punish provinces for administering the responsibility of health care. The matter is being discussed between provinces and the federal government. Most of the provinces are in disagreement with the Canada Health Act. It is hoped that perhaps at some time there may be some opportunity to persuade the federal government to agree with the provinces. Notwithstanding the amount of money which is in dispute and which is representative by penalty...falls within the three-year period of time when it could be recovered. So that three years has not yet expired, and we are still in discussions with the federal minister.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. When the minister said a moment ago that he would like to abolish the Canada Health Act, does that mean that the minister therefore wishes to abolish medicare?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the constitution of Canada, health care is a provincial responsibility. I wish the federal government would wake up and recognize that, and get rid of the Canada Health Act.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary: is the minister aware that user fees are a tax on the sick?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, those who attend our hospitals for treatment generally are ill.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister not aware that today, because of his government's policies of high unemployment,

[ Page 5650 ]

more and more people find user fees a financial burden? Would he not agree that they are?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, literally thousands of people are paying user fees of some kind each day. The amount for an acute-care facility is $8.50 a day. Over the course of a year I would think we might get four or five complaints from citizens with respect to that.

MRS. DAILLY: Does the minister not agree that the citizens who are being charged user fees are also paying for their medicare through taxes when they are working?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: User fees have been a factor in the medical system in British Columbia since the programs began. The user fees continued when the opposition was government.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar a day.

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, now it's a matter of how much.

The user fees in British Columbia represent considerable revenue for hospitals; they do provide them with a certain amount of revenue. We are of the belief that the amounts charged do not make a difficult financial burden for our citizens. There are instances where some individuals are destitute and do not have the opportunity or the ability to pay, and usually arrangements are made to resolve that problem. But I find it very difficult to believe that a person who is receiving approximately $400 worth of service a day for acute care finds it objectionable to be asked to pay $8.50 a day.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister aware that many of our citizens are unable to pay the user fees and therefore are building up a tremendous problem of collection of debts for the hospitals in B.C.?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's interesting that the member opposite is concerned about collection of debts yet disagrees with the charge. The hospitals are not that concerned about their uncollectable debts. They recognize that there are certain instances where a person will probably never be in the position to be able to pay. But those who go to our hospitals are more than happy to pay the $8.50 a day, unless they are in a very desperate financial situation, particularly those who have taken a trip to the U.S. and become ill.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, hospitals in British Columbia, if I may say this before I move on to the next question, are not allowed deficit financing by that minister, so naturally we are concerned about their deficit position.

The next question to the minister is the matter of the present situation with hospitals in B.C. They are now well into the fiscal year yet still do not know what their operating grant is. How on earth can he expect hospitals of this province to plan when he has not yet announced the grant? Will he tell the House now when he is going to?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The individual grants to the hospitals are now being processed, and they should receive that information very soon.

WEST COAST GENERAL HOSPITAL DEFICIT

MR. SKELLY: I have another question to the Minister of Health. West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni is being forced to close 19 beds and eliminate 18 full-time equivalent staff because the government has refused to assist with last year's deficit. Given the problems with staffing levels at West Coast General and the impact of additional unemployment in the Port Alberni area, will the minister reconsider his decision not to fund last year's deficit at Westcoast General Hospital?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

MR. BARNES: This is to the Minister of Health as well regarding the closing of the Vancouver General Hospital's teenage psychiatric ward. I am advised that concerned groups in the Vancouver area made contact with the minister regarding the proposed closing of the Vancouver General Hospital's teenage psychiatric unit this summer. In view of the community concern, has the minister decided whether he will meet with this group?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of which group are you speaking?

MR. BARNES: As I say, I have been advised that that was the case; however, I think the minister is aware of the problem. In light of the fact that this is the only such unit in the province, and in light of the fact that there has been no precedent set for the closing of the unit in the summertime, has the minister satisfied himself that there will be no danger to their health or any risk for these young people should the need arise for them to have this emergency service?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver General Hospital assures me that they will be able to take care of the demand during the period of time when that unit will be closed. One of the reasons for closing it entirely is to accommodate some staffing difficulties. The hospital has advised me that they will be able to handle the caseload with no difficulty. That's why they made the decision.

QUEEN ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN

MR. BLENCOE: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. In mid-1983, here in greater Victoria, the ministry approved a 25-bed unit at the Queen Alexandra Hospital for children and adolescents with acute mental illness. The project, however, has been on hold ever since. I know that the minister is well aware of the shortage of such facilities for disturbed adolescents. Can the minister assure the House that this essential project at Queen Alexandra Hospital is a high priority with the Ministry of Health and the Treasury Board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would take the question as notice because I would like to get some specific details on that. It is certainly a high priority, but I'd like to get some additional information.

[ Page 5651 ]

SHORTAGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTS
IN PRINCE GEORGE

MRS. DAILLY: The main question that I want to ask the minister today is to do with the Prince George Hospital, which seems to be plagued with many problems, all resulting primarily from the government's hospital financing policies. They're short of physiotherapists in Prince George, and at the same time we hear that they may be closing those courses at UBC, which seems rather ironic when they're desperately needed in British Columbia and here's a chance for work. Would the minister tell us if he has intervened or discussed this problem with the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer) or with the university itself?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it seems that sometimes the courses that offer the best opportunity for employment, and also serve the greatest need in our community, are those which universities suggest they should cancel first. I suppose that's because it captures most attention.

Yes, I have spoken to the minister, and I believe that the universities are in effect asking everyone associated with courses to justify the continuation of courses, as a matter of course. But there are certain paramedical courses being offered which should be continued. Unlike some courses offered, these are useful in our society, and I certainly have petitioned the minister responsible to keep on with it.

HOSPITAL BUDGETS

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question to the Premier. The Kelowna General Hospital board has been given an ultimatum by the Ministry of Health to stay within its budget for the next fiscal year, or else. The executive director in fact told board members in early March: "It seems inevitable that we will have to contemplate major cutbacks in beds and services, and it would be unrealistic to think otherwise." Can the Premier please advise the House as to whether hospitals throughout British Columbia will all be issued with ultimatums by the Minister of Health, following the example of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich's) recent ultimatums to the school boards?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I met with the chairman of the hospital board as recently as last weekend; he assures me that they can resolve their problems. We meet on a regular basis. I see a difficulty in management and tough times, but I have regular meetings with the chairman of the hospital board — who I also saw today on other business here in Victoria. But I'll tell him you were interested.

STEVE FONYO RUN

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Premier for your response. I do have another question, and this is directed to the Provincial Secretary. In view of the large number of people who are waiting a decision from the government, will the Provincial Secretary please advise whether cabinet has now decided to match contributions raised by Steve Fonyo in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The matter is under active consideration by cabinet at this time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I believe that answer is the same answer we received last week, and I was hoping that there would be a more positive response.

However, rumour does have it that the minister will attend at the B.C. border on the Trans-Canada Highway to welcome Mr. Fonyo and his entourage. In the interests of a non-partisan approach and in the spirit of cooperation in fundraising for cancer research, my question is: has the Provincial Secretary decided to include representatives from both sides of the House as a part of the welcoming committee for Mr. Fonyo?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, the Provincial Secretary has invited the MLA of the constituency in which Mr. Fonyo will be arriving.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My thanks.

Introduction of Bills

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 33, Charter of Rights Amendment Act, be introduced and now read a first time. I gave notice under the new rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, since we have passed over one step we need leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, three years ago tomorrow on the banks of the Ottawa River amid torrential deluges of rain the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian constitution, 1982, were signed into force and effect by Her Majesty the Queen. Three years later, in compliance with section 15 of the Charter of Rights, the equality section of that document comes into force tomorrow. Since the Legislature may not meet, it being Wednesday, I am introducing this bill today. The bill, you will find, in a tangible way presents a number of changes — long overdue, in my view — which will bring about some long-needed equity.

This list which you will see in that bill of some 50 measures that are being amended to conform with the equality provisions is neither a final nor an exhaustive list. Our approach in this bill has been to deal with the obvious and clear instances where there has been a conflict with section 15 — a readily apparent conflict. But undoubtedly there are other conflicts. Some of those conflicts will be identified through court proceedings. Others will emerge through usage and experience. There are some sections now that I have expressed concerns about as to their doubt and their validity.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that members of the public, interested groups as well as individuals, will wish to raise concerns and draw possible conflicts to our attention. I promise that such consideration will be given to all reasonable suggestions. Indeed, a number of groups already have made submissions to us asking for changes in the legislation, and a number of their proposals will have been adopted in this bill. Others are still under study.

I sincerely thank those who have taken the time to make their views known. and particularly those who have done very extensive briefs.

[ Page 5652 ]

One area worthy of mention....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. minister, I regret that the time under the first....

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Thank you, I appreciate that. I will try to be brief.

One area worthy of consideration is the question of mandatory retirement, with the wide implications that that has. Cabinet is reviewing that, and we will have a position on that in the very near future.

I just want to detail some of the general categories of matters that we are dealing with in this bill. First of all, we are abolishing the concept of illegitimacy. All legislation that refers to an illegitimate status for children is being changed, and those are extensive changes.

[2:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Secondly, we are abolishing discrimination on the basis of residence or British subject status. In some cases we are extending occupational membership to include permanent residents of Canada as well as citizens of Canada. In any case where an oath of duty or allegiance is required, we're leaving the qualification "citizens of Canada" — including the Election Act.

In this bill we are also modifying some age stipulations and a number of statutes which discriminate on the basis of sex. Interspousal immunity is abolished, following the recommendations of the B.C. Law Reform Commission. We are also amending the Workers Compensation Act to extend benefits to widowers as well as widows. And we are abolishing the Married Woman's Property Act — at long last. Protection under the wives' protection act will be extended to husbands. Registration of names in marriage is no longer restricted to the husband's name. Amendments respecting registration of names at birth will be contained in a separate bill later, which will amend the Vital Statistics Act, and so on. A number of measures to abolish gender distinction have been introduced, and some abolishing discrimination on the basis of age.

I welcome all members of the House and the public making known their views on further legislative changes, and I assure you that this is the beginning and not a compendium of all change under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have great honour in introducing this bill for first reading.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

(continued)

MR. MacWILLIAM: As I mentioned before we briefly recessed, I would like to stand and speak against Bill 30, and outline at this time a number of concerns that I have regarding the nature of this legislation. Being from the interior, I don't have any of the islands in question in my constituency. But I do have a number of concerns in terms of the impact of the type of legislation that we see before us.

I have concern with regard to the continued centralization of authority that seems to be inherent in this legislation, as has been inherent in a number of other bills that have been before this House in the last few years. The enactment of this bill would give the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) exclusive power to assign employees of his own ministry to the Islands Trust staff. Because of that, it compromises the autonomy of the present Trust. All current employees, moreover, will be deemed to be employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If this occurs, it would effectively eliminate the autonomy that the Islands Trust has at this point. An analogous move would be the province, for example, telling a local council or a school board that all future hiring would be done by Victoria. It would remove autonomy from these regional boards and local councils. I think that that type of legislation, which continues the ongoing process of centralization and the emasculation of the power of such boards, is wrong. I believe that the direction this government is taking is wrong.

Bill 30 is deceitful. It's not as simple as the minister said. It's not a simple housekeeping measure at all. I think that the intent of the bill is clearly a continued centralization of power. It will remove control of elected officials over their present situation: appointing staff, assigning duties and controlling the priorities of the Trust. They will lose their autonomy; it will be emasculated.

Bill 30 is disruptive. The amalgamation of the staff of Municipal Affairs and the staff of the Islands Trust would disrupt the ongoing planning and development services that are now provided in the Trust area.

Mr. Speaker, cooperation and trust will evaporate, will disappear, if the autonomy of this Trust is in any way diminished. That would endanger both these and future development proposals.

The record of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in terms of leaving matters in the hands of locals has been a poor one up to this point. If we look back to last summer, the minister began refusing to sign a variety of bylaws that were submitted to his office for approval. To cite some examples, he turned down the Denman Island zoning bylaw; he turned down the Lasqueti Island community plan and amendments to zoning bylaws for Mayne and North Pender Islands. He's had his hand directly in the affairs.

The point that I made earlier was the centralization of authority; the centralization of decision-making, however, I think is the critical issue here. This is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that is important not only to the constituents who reside in those islands but to all constituents throughout this province. My constituents in Okanagan North are concerned about the direction taken by this and other bills that this government has both passed and proposed.

Let me give you some examples of this bit by bit, this subtle yet inevitable accumulation and concentration of power in the hands of those few individuals in the smoky back

[ Page 5653 ]

rooms of the provincial cabinet: the 1977 abolition of community resource boards; the amendment of the land commission act to allow cabinet more control. Bill 30 is an example of this continued chipping away at control, and government control of the funding for the development of performing arts. We've got on the books amendments to the Municipal Act that virtually grant the minister the power to invalidate municipal and regional district bylaws.

In 1981, if I can remind the House, the land use act changes that were brought in removed autonomy in land use decisions from local councils, again controlling them under the ministry.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, Mr. Minister, I think the legislation stands. Let me point out another example to the minister, who seems rather sensitive on that issue. The 1982 municipal expenditures act virtually gives the minister control over funds spent by municipalities. That's a direct hand in what really should be an autonomous process.

We look again at 1982, the Education (Interim) Finance Act. I see that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) isn't here to defend or rebut the statements, but when you look at it, this legislation brought forth in 1982 sharply curtailed the autonomy of the local boards. In addition, it was a subtle confiscation of the industrial and community tax base, taking it away from those communities and again centralizing it in the hands of a few individuals.

We've got the alteration of revenue-sharing in 1977, which substantially reduced the conditional grants to municipalities and limited municipalities as to how they could fund their local priorities. Everywhere you look, Mr. Speaker, this government has taken more and more control away from the regional boards and put it into the hands of a few individuals.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to avoid interrupting. I think there will be an appropriate opportunity for him to reply. I will advise the member now speaking that if he spoke more directly to the act in front of us, much heckling might not be invited. To the act, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but in reference to your statement, I feel that I'm speaking to the principle of the act.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's difficult to sit here and listen to all this misinformation, but I think the easy way to correct that is to ask that member to stay on Bill 30. If you do so, then you won't get off track and leave all this misinformation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The point of order is well taken and has been expressed by the Chair. To the bill, please.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In reference to those statements, again, we're looking at the underlying principles of this bill. My focus was to try to show just what this piece of legislation is furthering. I think it does represent a continued centralization of power, and I think the minister would agree that in any democratically elected government we have to have a certain degree of autonomy in the local boards. This legislation takes away that type of local input and control.

In concluding, I think my arguments have pointed out that the bill is deceitful in nature. I think they've pointed out that it does amount to a further centralization of authority. On that basis I will be voting against this bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It probably falls on me, not having spoken in second reading but only on the amendment to this bill, to close debate. I think all of our members have spoken. I'll be brief. I'm not going to yell and scream and wave my arms.

What I really intend to do — and I hope the minister is listening — is attempt to do is a summation of the speeches that have been made in this House over the last week or so relating to this bill, and explain why we're going to oppose it and vote against it. I'm going to stick strictly to the bill.

We feel that Bill 30 is not the tidy little housekeeping bill that the Minister of Municipal Affairs pretends it is. If the minister's primary concern is to make it clear that Trust staff are employees of the province, a simple amendment to the present wording of section 13 would have sufficed. I might note that this has been proposed by the Trust. Our debate leader is prepared to move such an amendment in committee stage, I understand.

The effect of this bill is to remove from the control of the elected officials the power to appoint staff, assign duties and control the priorities of the Trust.

I know the minister is listening, even though he's having a conversation over there.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm listening.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know you are, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, amalgamation of the staff of Municipal Affairs and the staff of the Islands Trust would seriously disrupt the planning and development services now being provided to the communities in the Trust area. Far from demonstrating a drawbridge mentality, the Trust has been instrumental in obtaining local support for major developments on South Pender, Saltspring and several other islands that I could name. I'm very familiar with the islands in the Trust.

Cooperation and trust will evaporate if the autonomy of the Trust is diminished, and this could endanger future development proposals, in my view.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain asks me who wrote it. May I tell you, Mr. Member, that I took the time to listen to this debate very carefully, because I have islands in my riding that are in the Trust. I have read Hansard on the portions of the debate that I was not able to attend here in the House when I was commuting here or was at other events. I have summarized the debate as I saw it on two and a half pages, and I made very careful notes. I wanted a quiet debate. I didn't want to get into a yelling match with the minister as I did a few days ago when I spoke on the amendment. I'm trying to summarize the debate as a whole, because likely we'll be voting on this bill in the House within five minutes.

Last summer the minister began refusing to sign a variety of bylaws submitted to him for approval. For example, he

[ Page 5654 ]

turned down the Denman Island zoning bylaw, the Lasqueti Island community plan and amendments to zoning bylaws for Mayne and North Pender Islands. I could go on. No one is certain of the criteria applied to these cases. It appears to me that the minister has taken it upon himself to refuse approval for plans and bylaws he personally disagrees with. That's my honest view.

The move to take control of the Trust staff is a betrayal, in my view, of the oft-repeated commitment to respect the autonomy of the Islands Trust. It also betrays the government's commitment to consultation and partnership with local governments. I know, as an aside, that the minister has been out attempting to sell to communities the partnership idea that has been put forward in legislation in this House.

Who said this: "I believe nowhere else do you get the true expression of opinion of what should be done with the surrounding area than with the people who live their lives and have a continuing interest in their area"? The answer to who said that is the Premier of this province. That was a quote from May 21, 1974, during debate of the Islands Trust Act. So, in summary, Bill 30 is a betrayal of the principle of local government autonomy. Moreover, it is a specific betrayal of the government's supposed commitment to the principles of cooperation and consultation.

Bill 30 is a dangerous precedent. It is an unwarranted interference in the responsibilities of duly elected local officials. Once it is established, no other democratically elected local official would be immune from similar power grabs by Victoria. We've seen another example of this, as my colleague pointed out, just a short while ago.

Bill 30 is a power grab, not the tidy little housekeeping bill that the Minister of Municipal Affairs pretends. If the minister's primary concern is to make it clear that Trust staff are employees of the province, a simple amendment to section 13 would suffice, as I mentioned before.

No government member has risen in this House and successfully explained the need to completely take over the staff of the Trust. It was the failure of the previous minister, Mr. Bill Vander Zalm, to get cabinet support for his land use act in 1982 that drove him to resign. At that time he called his colleagues "gutless" for refusing to support his plan, which, among other things, would have wiped out the Islands Trust.

Bill 30 achieves the same, albeit in a more subtle fashion. Where the Land Use Act planned to strip the power of the Trust by appointing a committee of provincial civil servants to perform regional planning and governing of the islands, Bill 30 accomplishes the same by simply absorbing those responsibilities for island planning within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proper course for the government now would be to drop Bill 30 and consult with the trustees and the residents of the Gulf Islands on the need for any changes necessary to improve the ability of the Islands Trust to fulfill its responsibility to protect and preserve the islands.

If I may, I take this opportunity to commend our debate leader, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), on his long, diligent and strong opposition to this bill. This is not the end. There will be further debate on this bill, and I sincerely hope that before we go into committee stage on this bill the minister will seriously consider the amendments proposed by the Trust and proposed by my colleagues. If the minister would get up in this House now in closing debate on this bill and tell us that he would do that, we might just reconsider our position as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to close debate on this most interesting topic, the Islands Trust.

First, let it go on record in this House, as I have done publicly and as I have done at meetings with the trustees, that indeed I, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, place a great deal of confidence in the ability of our trustees to carry out their mandate, and also that I personally — and I do represent my government — support the Islands Trust and place a tremendous value on those islands. As some of your people across the floor have said, you consider these islands as gems, and they are. We consider them as gems also.

MR. REID: Jewels.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What's the difference?

Mr. Speaker, Islands Trust is here to stay, as far as I am concerned, because the Islands Trust has a very important role to play, and that role is to preserve to the best of their ability the qualities that those islands contain.

Mr. Speaker, this entire province contains many qualities which we have people out there elected to preserve. Of course it comes in different forms. We have very valuable resources in our province, whether we go into the northern part or whether we are looking at the interior of our province, where we have some of the world's most valuable tree-fruit country. We have some very valuable resources in our forests. We have very valuable resources in the lower mainland, where we have the ability to produce many commodities that can't be produced in many other parts of the world. So leave no doubt in the minds of anyone that I place a great deal of value on the islands, as I do on all other parts of our province.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the House here that, just as an example and a demonstration of my interest in the islands and the work of the Islands Trust, at the request of the Islands Trust my ministry jointly funded a study into island heritage buildings. I just want to congratulate Islands Trust, under the leadership of their chairman, Mr. Humphries, who conducted this study and have produced a tremendous piece of material, something that I think will be most valuable in years to come in our schools and in our libraries, and very important indeed to our tourist industry. I have discussed this item with our Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), and as soon as he saw it he said: "My goodness, we must get some copies of that. That's great work." Mr. Speaker, this great work is the result of a coordinated, cooperative, partnership approach to doing what can be done to benefit the Gulf Islands.

So, Mr. Speaker, let there be no question in anyone's mind that as far as I'm concerned, and I speak for the government, the Islands Trust is here to stay, and the islands will be protected, and the islands will be assisted in producing the greatest value for those islands and for the people of this province.

There has been a great deal of talk about letters received in respect to the Islands Trust, and each member who wrote letters and referred to letters supporting the Islands Trust was being truthful, because I too received those letters. The reason for those letters was the review that I commissioned of all regional districts including the Islands

[ Page 5655 ]

Trust...attracted those letters, because again those narrow-minded, those suspicious-minded people who would think the worst of all things suspected that we were looking again at doing away with the Islands Trust. There was absolutely no intention of that at all, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that the trustees and the chairman, in spite of the meetings that we have had.... We have had some meetings prior to this. They did have my assurance that that would happen. But the review attracted those letters. They attracted those letters because on my instructions the public were asked for their views of the Islands Trust. The support was overwhelming that the Islands Trust should be preserved, and it will be preserved.

There have been a number of people who have opposed the amendment to the act, and we also have a number of people who have supported it by way of telephone calls and letters. So we have an even balance there. But the fact that these letters were received from all of those people supporting the Trust proves that I am right — that the Trust should stay, and the Trust will stay.

But as I pointed out as I introduced the bill, some housekeeping had to take place. On the explanatory note of the bill it states very simply: "This act enables the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to provide staff assistance to the Islands Trust." Now if you read the act.... Those people across the floor obviously have not read it. They've had their notes written for them by their research department and sadly have really not delved into it individually. But if you read the act you will find out quite clearly that the Islands Trust do have the authority to appoint and set salaries for staff. If, Mr. Speaker, they wish to retain the services of consultants or specialists or anyone else outside of the staff itself, then they may do so with the authority or the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Now the act as it's written gives them the authority to appoint and set salaries, but it does not give them the authority that they require to pay these salaries. The employees that stand there today, with the exception of one, are members of the bargaining unit — the BCGEU — and as such are indeed part of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs staff. However, there is no legal authority in there for me to assign staff to the Trust to carry out their duties. So what we are doing here is simply giving the ministry that authority. We had no intentions of removing these staff members from the bargaining unit — not at all. We are simply going to make legal the need for this ministry to assign staff to the Islands Trust to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Islands Trust have my assurance, as does this House, that they will be amply supported in carrying out their mandate. That doesn't mean to say, however, that we are going to simply assign staff as requests come in. I have occasions to refuse to assign staff in some functions within my own ministry simply because I have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to make sure that things are done in the most efficient manner and in a least-cost way. But the fact that we have reduced our ministry staff over the past couple of years and cut our cost of operating has not caused any deterioration in the services that we provide. The services that this ministry provides, Mr. Speaker, are as good as, if not better than, they have been in the past, and those services will continue, and the quality and efficiency of delivery of those services will continue to be improved upon.

The act, as I pointed out earlier, is simply a housecleaning process. It is something that was absolutely necessary in order to have this thing operate as it should.

[3:00]

There was a question from the member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis). It was to do with staffing. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention to that member that when one looks at the cost of the staffing there, and at the decision most recently to add a staff member to manage six people in there, one does have to question the economics. Therefore there is no question that the people of the islands will benefit from any staff changes that may be deemed to be an improvement to increase the efficiency of the operation. But I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that under no circumstances will any move be made to make it difficult or impossible for the Islands Trust to carry out its mandate.

There has also been some criticism from the opposition about my attempting to remove power from the Islands Trust and bring it into the hands of the ministry. Absolute nonsense! There is absolutely no thought at this moment — nor do I anticipate that there will be any need for any thought — to change the structure of the Islands Trust itself. They are well represented by very interested people, people who are dedicated to the responsibilities that they have taken on. I just want to put to rest.... We have no intentions at all of taking away any of that authority. The thrust of this ministry over the past year and a half has been to decentralize, as has just been discovered by the national NDP, which recently reported that they have at long last realized that centralization doesn't work; what is going to work is decentralization. That was reported yesterday in the Times-Colonist. Their own parent party out of Ottawa has at long last decided that centralization of these matters doesn't work.

I also have an article here — I must point it out — that there has been a committee struck, I believe by the government of Manitoba, to look into the possibility of doing away with the election of a mayor. Here we have an opposition party that keeps accusing this government of doing things that indeed their own party....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many times during my debate the minister interrupted to say that I was off the topic. If ever there was a time he was off the topic, I would certainly say that introducing issues from Manitoba is off the topic.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, this debate has had an awful lot of latitude, hon. member, and the Chair will decide who is and is not relevant. Please proceed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record here that this ministry has absolutely no intention of grabbing power, as has been suggested; rather, we intend to run an efficient operation in the interests of all the people. I will continue to meet with Islands Trust people as it is possible. There is a request at hand at the moment by the chairman of the Islands Trust, Mr. Humphries, for a meeting. Because of my schedule, I have asked my parliamentary secretary to sit down with Mr. Humphries and indeed have that meeting.

I also plan to visit all of the islands, hopefully this year. I have already accepted an invitation to speak very shortly to a group on one of the islands. I'm sure that whenever this all passes over, and after I've had a chance to meet with them, everyone out there will agree that it indeed was a tempest in a

[ Page 5656 ]

teapot. A great deal of time has been lost in getting into more important legislation — legislation that is going to get people back to work in this province. I look forward to getting on to some of that legislation to get our unemployed back to work.

With that, I now move second reading of this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS 27

NAYS 20

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the name Davis on the affirmative?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe so, hon. member.

Bill 30, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

WORKPLACE ACT

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'm pleased to stand in my place today and move second reading of the Workplace Act, which will transfer the duties of the occupational environment branch, currently within the Ministry of Labour, to the Workers' Compensation Board.

The proposed Workplace Act and the regulations made under the act will replace the now outdated Factory Act. Matters of health, safety and comfort, and the well-being of the employees and the public in factories, offices and shops, will now be the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. This consolidation of occupational safety and health services will result in far more efficient and effective services and a more efficient inspection procedure. It will benefit all of the partners in the system, as well as provide a common source of education and enforcement of the statutory provisions.

It should be noted, too, that under section 7 of the Workplace Act, 12 of the employees currently within the Ministry of Labour will be transferred, along with their seniority, to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of the Workplace Act.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the House might give us a translation of that speech. It was in a language I didn't quite understand. I ran against a candidate in the last election who had a similar foreign language that made it very difficult to know what he was talking about. I must say that we're going to have to ask the Minister of Labour to slow down a little bit when he reads prepared material.

I want to say, first of all, in respect to the Workplace Act, that in principle the opposition agrees with the concept of transferring the responsibilities for occupational health from the Ministry of Labour to the Workers' Compensation Board. We have in the past advocated such a transfer, and we believe that an integrated administration through the Workers' Compensation Board is appropriate. That's the first point I'd like to make.

The second point I'd like to make is that we're going to oppose this bill. I'll tell the House why, Mr. Speaker. There has been approximately $1 million in the budget of the Ministry of Labour for the administration of the occupational environment branch of the Ministry of Labour. When the transfer is made from the ministry to the Workers' Compensation Board, no provisions are allowed for the Workers' Compensation Board to raise revenue to meet that extra million-dollar expenditure. In fact, what we've had in the last nine years, if my count is correct, is six annual freezes in assessments at the Workers' Compensation Board. No longer does workplace health and safety have its funding relate to the costs involved.

The Workers' Compensation Board has had to cut back in a variety of areas, particularly inspection. They've had to be tougher in an unfair way on workers who have been injured and who have filed claims, as a result of insufficient revenues coming into the board each and every year.

This transfer of responsibility adds additional costs in the amount of about a million dollars a year to the Workers' Compensation Board. One could argue, and I'm sure the minister will, that a million dollars in the budget of the WCB is not very much; and in percentage terms it's not — I grant that. But it's yet another burden on the WCB when in fact they have not nearly enough money at the present time to properly protect health and safety in this province, not nearly enough money to properly adjudicate claims and pay workers who should be paid for work loss and often for permanent disability.

I don't intend to use this bill to deal with all of the inadequacies of the Workers' Compensation Board. We would have to spend at least as long on this legislation as we did on the Islands Trust if we did that. We'll take the opportunity during the estimates of the minister to outline what we consider to be some very serious problems in terms of occupational health and safety in this province. I'm sure the minister would agree there are some very serious problems. The other day in the House, in answer to a question from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), he suggested that Rome wasn't built in a day. The implication of course was that

[ Page 5657 ]

the former minister had burned it down while the government fiddled — if I've got my analogies close to correct, Mr. Speaker.

There is some very real concern with transferring an important branch such as the occupational environment branch to the Workers' Compensation Board, for a number of reasons, one of which I have mentioned — the fact of inadequate funding at the WCB. Another relates to the fact that over the years the history of the OEB has been to be quite progressive in comparison to the WCB. They have led on many issues — a good branch. As with so many parts of government, when you get far enough away from the cabinet offices, the public servants who run the departments or the branches quite often do an excellent job. In this case that was the situation. The OEB was run well, it was doing innovative work, and it led the field in terms of dealing with occupational hazards and with environmental health, beyond the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board. And the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board has not been amended, to date at least. There is no indication that I know of that the minister intends to broaden the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board in respect of workplace or occupational health and safety.

That leads to the concern that the good work being done at the OEB will not be continued at the WCB, because the pattern at the WCB right now is in fact to cut down the number of inspections. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to have a look at how many safety inspectors have taken early retirement in the last little while and how many new ones have been hired to replace them. I suspect the answer to the first question is "a lot" and the answer to the second question is "none." There are very real, serious concerns about inspection.

We were talking about the Coquihalla Highway in the House the other day. I know of a case on the Coquihalla Highway where a worker was injured and, because that particular contractor had no health and safety people, someone from an adjoining contractor's site had to come to administer first aid. Not only that, but the poor guy had to be hauled out of the site on a piece of plywood instead of a stretcher. It's that kind of thing that comes when you don't have proper inspection. I'm told — and I can't prove this, but I'm told — that on that particular construction site no inspections had been done. It stands to reason why that particular contractor gets away with it, because his name is Kerkhoff.

But that's the pattern that's happening. I'm not blaming the inspector or the inspectors or the inspection branch. I'm blaming the policies of the government, which have interfered with the ability of the WCB to properly conduct its mandate to inspect sites, to ensure that safe practices are taking place and to make sure that proper health and safety programs are in place.

There are examples like that all over this province — in logging camps, in sawmills and everywhere else. If it weren't for the fact that union-management safety committees — where they exist, in unionized firms — weren't on the ball, we would have chaos on our industrial sites in this province, in terms of health and safety.

While the lack of inspection is going on, while the blind eye is being turned and while standards are diminished, what's the response of the government? Not to say that assessments should meet needs but that costs should be balanced out by revenues — not to do that; they freeze the assessments — and, secondly, not to bring in amendments to the Workers Compensation Act which might help to address some of these problems. But what's the response? The response is to bring in a bill, the Workplace Act, which loads yet further responsibilities on the WCB in an area where they haven't been doing very well — and not through any fault of the staff who are involved in that particular area, but because the board has decided to de-emphasize workplace health and safety for any number of reasons.

The primary one I more than suspect is that they want to try in the short term to reduce the costs to employers of doing business by reducing their WCB assessments. It's a shortsighted policy, because in the long term that increases costs, not just in purely financial terms but also in terms of what society loses when workers are off the job. The media talk often in this province about all the time lost because of strikes and lockouts. You know, it's a smidgen compared to what's lost through industrial accidents and disease. Until we start to take these issues seriously, we on this side of the House have some very real problems supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the bill the explanatory note that says: "The purpose of this bill is to provide for safety in the workplace." This bill will not save one faller's life, will not save workers' health and safety, will not prevent industrial disease. Bills don't do that. Commitments with an appropriate attitude to a proper program are what provide safety in the workplace.

I might just say in parentheses, while I'm on the explanatory note, that I'd like the Minister of Labour — and perhaps other ministers could take a hint from this — to take a look at Bill 33, the one that was introduced today, the Charter of Rights amendment, in which amendments were spelled out in a way we can deal with clearly and with some real explanation. It might be useful in the future for some of these pieces of legislation to have more than the inane — if I might say that and, I guess, apologize to the drafter of the words; but it's the government's responsibility — explanatory note that says the bill is to provide for safety in the workplace. That's not what the bill provides for. The bill is to do other things. It's to replace the Factory Act. It's to transfer the OEB to the WCB. Why doesn't it say that?

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak very much longer. I keep getting more files, but we're not talking about a major piece of legislation in terms of this Legislature. We're not talking about something that's going to take us two or three days to debate. I don't think that that would be appropriate at all for this particular bill. But I do want to reiterate the major points. The first is that in philosophical terms we agree with the idea that the OEB be integrated into the WCB. But we cannot support this bill at this time, when funding is not provided, when the WCB itself is in chaos, when health and safety standards are diminished in virtually every area of our province, and when there is no apparent commitment on the part of the government to bring in the necessary complementary amendments to the WCB act, which would go together with this particular legislation so that the Workplace Act could be more effective.

Mr. Speaker, I realize this is perhaps a committee stage kind of discussion, but the minister referred to section 7 in his comments, so I want to now as well. Section 7 is one of these catch-22 clauses that are very difficult to oppose because what they do is very nice on the surface. What it basically does is make sure that the employees at the OEB are transferred together with all their seniority to the WCB. But what

[ Page 5658 ]

we're doing, in having this particular section in this legislation, is flying in the face of the collective agreement negotiated between the workers at the WCB and the board, the commissioners. The collective agreement spells out how to deal with seniority.

Now if I were standing in the House speaking on behalf of the workers who are being transferred, I would applaud this particular section because apparently there are some guarantees for them. But when, on the other hand, I'm standing in this House thinking about the people who are working in that particular part of the WCB right now, whose seniority will be dramatically affected by this particular section, I have an obvious conflict, don't I? So, as I usually like to do when these kinds of issues are confronted, I say what is right in theory. What is right in theory, what is right in principle in a case like this, is that the legislation guarantee that appropriate negotiations are conducted to integrate the seniority lists and to guarantee the workers, but not impose, as this does, a provision right on that particular collective agreement.

[3:30]

I realize this is something we may want to do a bit more of in committee stage, because it's a complicated area. But there's something wrong, in my view, with this kind of interference in a freely-arrived-at collective agreement between consenting parties. If it was a business transaction and a contract between two businesses, the members on that side of the House would be very loath to do this kind of thing. But, of course, when it comes to workers it doesn't much matter, it seems.

I think I've said what I want to say, Mr. Speaker. We'll have some further comments during second reading. In conclusion, let me say that I wish we could have had this bill after the appropriate changes were made. I'm delighted that the integration is taking place, but having seen the mess at the WCB, the minister should know that members on this side of the House will not be supporting Bill 4.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we do regret being unable to support this bill. There are some other aspects that worry me as well, and that's the question of government continually taking regulatory powers out of legislation, moving them to the cabinet and having regulations come by order-in-council. We will recall that the old Factory Act had a number of regulations that were enshrined in law. Now we have regulations that are going to be decided on behind those closed cabinet doors. So it is of some concern, not particularly so much for this bill but for other legislation that has passed in this assembly since 1976.

We've had a real erosion of the authority of the Legislature in British Columbia. Bill after bill coming in is nothing much more than providing the cabinet with legislative authority; that is, taking legislative authority away from the assembly and giving it to the cabinet. That is one concern that I have.

I share my colleague's major concern about the whole question of the transfer of the work of the old Occupational Environment Board to the Workers' Compensation Board, and of course all the inspections and so on. Mr. Speaker, there has been word that there will be no increase in the WCB rates to those who pay the bill. So there are no new revenues that we're looking forward to for WCB.

Presently the Workers' Compensation Board isn't doing the job that's necessary in terms of occupational health and safety. If they can't do it now, how are they going to do it with this increased responsibility? This increased responsibility is going to cost $1 million, and there is no source of revenue to the board to provide for this increased responsibility. It just goes without saying that this legislation either comes too early or too late, or something, because there isn't the means to administer what we have before us. That is why we are so particularly concerned about it, and that's why we oppose it. We don't oppose the principle; we oppose what's being done, because we can't see that it's possible to administer it properly.

If the Workers' Compensation Board cannot look after their own responsibilities now, and they can't.... I agree with my colleague that we'll certainly be discussing this a lot more in the minister's estimates than we will under this bill. If they can't look after the responsibilities now, how can we expect them to look after their responsibilities when they are going to be increased to the tune of at least $1 million?

There are numbers of groups moving around the province. The minister has been going around talking to people about the Workers' Compensation Board and other areas of his responsibility. Presently the B.C. Federation of Labour has a committee that has heard peoples' responses to this question from all over the province. As a matter of fact, I attended a meeting just the other day. There are any number of briefs from all sectors, from all areas of the province and also from all the different employer-employee sectors giving evidence to this committee, and I'm sure it's the same kind of evidence that the minister is getting indicating a complete lack of people's feeling toward the compensation board in a positive way and a very great criticism in opposition to the way things are being handled at the present time.

So there are going to be cuts, as I see it, in vocational rehabilitation spending, and those cuts are just not viable at the present time. Now if the minister had come in with a companion piece of legislation to show us how this was to be done, how this could be implemented without very much hurting the system, then I would say "great." But at the present time there is nothing like that on the order paper and nothing like that even suggested. So we just have to oppose it.

We oppose because beyond the fact that we find this additional $1 million that is being applied to WCB, we also find that to save money they've been closing regional offices, cutting vocational rehabilitation spending, dismantling the hearing branch. All that, and we have this to face them as well, and what are they going to do to look after this responsibility? Mr. Speaker, what we should be doing right now is finding ways and means of saving lives, saving people's health. We're not doing it with this piece of paper in any way, shape or form.

I see cut after cut, and if that's what's going to finance this.... People come to my office and all my colleagues' offices and I'm sure the offices of the government members and tell us how they've waited and waited for appeals — how they have been mishandled, having been hurt in the workplace, and wind up off compensation on welfare through no fault of their own. Now if we're going to have more of this as a response to this particular change in legislation, then I bitterly oppose it. Every one of us who sits in this Legislature gets concern after concern placed on his or her desk by constituents who have had a grievance with the WCB.

I just do not feel that an additional $1 million in obligations on the WCB will add to anything other than the injury of the people who have already been injured. Those people are out there, and if any members of this Legislative Assembly

[ Page 5659 ]

can get up and say that they're not hearing from them, then I suggest they're deaf, because they are hearing from them.

WCB is becoming cruel, and maybe not of their own making but because they have not enough money to provide the level of insurance that they should. I'm positive that the word is down there: "Squeeze as tight as you can. We can afford no more claims." Well, if that's the case, the thing isn't being run properly.

When the minister comes in with something comprehensive that can assure us that this can be done, we'll support him. Presently, however, I'm afraid we can't.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the members opposite, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and appreciate their contribution to the debate. The Workers' Compensation Board anticipated this change, and out of their $600 million annual budget they have anticipated and budgeted for this change in this fiscal year.

The members mentioned an area of grave concern to me as well as to every member of this assembly; that is, the backlog of individuals waiting for appeals to the board of review. While that isn't covered in this bill, nor is the funding for it provided directly.... It's funded by the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Labour allocates the individuals and the teams that are selected to hear those appeals. It's an area that I have a concern about. The backlog has occurred since the early seventies and now stands at about 5,000. Clearly none of us can take comfort from that type of situation. We want to get that resolved as quickly as we can.

I've had an opportunity to talk with some of the people involved in the B.C. Federation of Labour, along with the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, employer groups and, indeed, the people who volunteer a great deal of time and effort on the job site trying to make the place a better place for all of their colleagues to work in and participate in. I've had a chance to talk to them, and we will be dealing with that over the course of the next several weeks as we get further advice from them on how to deal with the problem.

So this bill has nothing to do with it. The member for North Island mentioned that it won't save a faller's life. The bill covers areas in offices, factories and places like that, replacing the old and outdated Factory Act, and has nothing to do with that area of responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board. But I will be pleased to come back to the members, and I look forward to the advice and support of all of the members later on as we make some changes to the appeal process that will, we hope, speed up that process.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading of the bill.

[3:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 17

Bill 4, Workplace Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 17: minister's office, $179,543.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief comments and a few questions for the minister on his vote. I would like to say that I think that most people in the province feel that the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is a very well-meaning minister, but unfortunately he is having to carry the ball for the Premier and the Premier's fiscal policies of restraint. The effects on the school system are indeed serious.

I think that the government is hoping that the really disastrous effects will not catch up with them during their tenure. But I can assure you that they have sown the seeds of a very tragic time for some of the children in our school system. The areas of cutbacks may not appear to be having a major effect right at this moment, but we now find that parents' groups, teachers' groups and trustee groups across the province are beginning to see that the restraint placed upon the educational system in this province is indeed affecting the welfare of their children. That is why, I think, the Minister of Education is under constant attack from various areas of the province, and rightly so, because the government which brings in these policies must face the results of those policies.

I know that the education critic for our party has already outlined in a very clear, articulate manner the detailed results of some of these policies of the Social Credit government. My primary concern — and this is where I want to hit some basic questions to you, Mr. Minister — is this whole area of finance and restraint. I understand that you have reorganized your ministry, and the concern that I have heard expressed is that this ministry reorganization and restructure is primarily oriented to financial management. I would like to ask the minister if he could give us a breakdown, for the interest of the committee members here, on just what he has done with this restructuring.

My concern is that the educational component of the ministry is being smothered and what we have taking over is the financial side of the ministry, to the detriment of the educational program. I wonder if the minister can explain to us the new structure. I have been talking to people out there who are involved in education and have a sincere commitment to it, and they are concerned that the ministry is primarily turning into a bookkeeper's type of ministry, with little concern being expressed at this time about the educational

[ Page 5660 ]

programming. I personally believe that this is a constraint that has been imposed on that minister by the Premier and his fiscal policies. Once again it means that the bookkeeper mentality is taking over and the educational component, which deals with what happens to that child or student in the classroom, is losing out.

It is an interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, that when I first came into this Legislature — and we were dealing at that time with the old Social Credit government — the opposition members at that time, including me, were finding ourselves making the same kind of speech I find myself making today in condemning this bookkeeper mentality, which doesn't seem to show a concern for the educational philosophy of the ministry.

That leads me to my second question. The minister has spent a great deal of time — and has actually been given praise for his ability — citing figures and statistics to refute the arguments brought up by his critics, but at no time can I say that the minister has shown the people of British Columbia that he has a philosophy on education. He has not really said to us where he sees the system over which he presides going to equip our students for the year 2000, because we have to work towards that now.

As I say, the minister is very fluent with the figures. We know you have to deal with money, but on the other hand, don't become entirely obsessed with that. Can you tell us where you really want to go? You are in a very sensitive area. There is nothing more important than dealing with the minds of young people, and yet we don't know where that minister would like to see the educational system go. There are two questions about the financing structure and your philosophy on education.

My third question deals with the area which I am afraid this minister, as well as other members of his government and past ministers under this government, has really been very negligent in dealing with, and that's the whole area of family life education. I think more and more today we are seeing the results of a lack of clear leadership given from the Ministry of Education — and may I say the Ministry of Health, too — in the whole area of encouraging proper family life, or sex education, if you wish, in the schools of British Columbia.

[4:00]

I believe that the increase in teenage pregnancies in this province is a disgrace, and I think we have to look very seriously — and I intend to discuss this again under the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) estimates — at the responsibility of government to give some leadership in the prevention of these teenage pregnancies. I personally feet that to turn your back on the whole area of sex education, as I know the former minister, who is now the Minister of Universities (Hon. Mr. McGeer), did.... He wouldn't open his mouth on it; he wouldn't touch it. He was probably afraid of a vociferous, vocal minority out there who would immediately attack the government.

But I think there comes a time when the government must take a stand on these issues and not hide from them. At this time I think we are seeing the results of ten years of neglect by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health in creating and assisting in the development of good family life and sex education programs in our schools. The ones that have survived have survived primarily because of a commitment by teachers and administrators in a particular district. But other districts who do not want to do it are given no leadership or encouragement by the minister, as far as I know.

I think the results speak for themselves. I ask the minister: here is an area that you could give leadership in.

This is my final question, and you may wonder what this has to do with the Minister of Education at this time. It's the area of peace. I want to ask if you would give consideration to encouraging school boards to bring into their curriculums some of the programs on peace and the discussions of nuclear warfare which are taking place in some schools and systems in the United States. This does not mean that you get one side only discussed, but what is being done.... There are curriculums and programs prepared where the students have an opportunity to hear people who are for nuclear disarmament and then those who feel that you must maintain nuclear weapons. The point is that we must make the students who come out of our schools aware of two sides of these questions. Many of us feel very strongly on one side. I personally am very strongly for anti-nuclear programs, but I accept the fact that if you're going to have a good educational system, you have to give both sides and let the students think for themselves.

I know this is taking place in schools in the United States. I can't think of anything more important, because unless we face this tremendous problem of possible nuclear warfare, all we do here becomes meaningless. We owe it to our children and our grandchildren. So I would like to hear the minister comment on those.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the latter point that has been raised involving controversial issues, I am advised that the ministry is working on a policy on controversial issues and that I can expect that something will be coming to my office — I suppose the expression is overused — in due course. I concede to the member that I haven't spent any time on the subject matter of controversial issues, and I think that perhaps is understandable in view of....

MRS. DAILLY: You've got enough controversial issues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I think that's quite correct. This has been a difficult issue, and we've had a lot to do. But I point out to the member for Burnaby North that the last point which was advanced is something which we wish to address. There will be a controversial issues package. How it's going to be handled or how it will be implemented I do not know. But at least thought has been given to it.

Now as far as the family life program is concerned, I can tell you that there is a document in my office now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Release it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There will be lots of documents which will be released. Let's face it: government is an open book anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Especially yours.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's right. I've been very open with everything that we've talked about.

As for the family life program, the member made reference to something over the period of the last ten years involving the matter of pregnancies. That takes us back to 1974-75. I recognize this, and I guess when I get some time to have a good look.... The manual put on my desk is rather a heavy one. There has been some call, interestingly enough, to have

[ Page 5661 ]

it at least published and placed in school libraries. However, when I was touring the province, meeting with all of the school boards, I was getting a number of views expressed on this particular issue. Some boards were aware that the ministry had been working on it, and said: "We don't want you to put it out." Others were saying: "We would like to have it."

Frankly I am inclined to agree with your position, Madam Member, that it's something that has got to be addressed. I don't think that by putting our heads in the sand we're going to resolve the problem. It may be that if nothing is ventured, nothing is gained. But I want you to know that the manual has been prepared. Whether it is adequate or not, I'm not really in a position to say — except to tell you that a draft has been prepared.

The allegations with respect to the accounting aspect of the ministry, I suppose, are in the eyes of the beholder. But I think we can go back.... I don't want to go over a long period of history, because there is nothing to be gained by it. It's very easy for me to get warmed up and start firing out a number of points. I recognize that there has been a great deal to do with finance in the Ministry of Education. I think it was something that had to be addressed. My objective, to be honest with you, is that I think the Ministry of Education, as far as public schools are concerned, must be involved in the finance portion. I don't think there's any dispute about that. I think government must be involved with respect to teachers' certification. We certainly have to be involved in curriculum to a major degree and, I think, in examinations and assessments.

Yes, I have reorganized the ministry. There were a number of changes. There were a number of retirements, as you are well aware. I think that for the most part everything went very smoothly. I don't recall ever having any employees who were leaving make untoward statements. It was a difficult task, but I think it worked out reasonably well. Yes, the size of the ministry has been reduced from something in the order of 711 people three years ago. Our complement now, as far as full-time equivalents permitted under the budget are concerned, is something in the order of about 484. I think it's down 31 percent. I can advise the member, though, that we have some breathing space in here, because the actual number of people employed in the ministry is, I would say, roughly 435 or 440. So we have some room. One of the areas where I would like to use that room, if I could, is curriculum development.

Yesterday a comment was made with respect to fiscal matters and our involvement, and I would just like to raise this point. Since I was assigned the portfolio, we have been involved with graduation requirements. There has been discussion about course content for grades 11 and 12, and, of course, there was the reintroduction of external examinations. Each of those items has taken a great deal of time. I think that the number of items we have covered in a period of less than two years has been quite significant.

The other item is this: when you ask what my personal objectives are, or my personal philosophy.... Certainly I have a number of ideas. But what I'm concerned about — and I don't think I can be accused of copping out of a direct response to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) — is this: we have put, by design, to the public of British Columbia an opportunity to tell us what they want for their school system; what they, the public, the owners of the public school system, want. The document, as you know, was entitled "Let's Talk About Schools." The response has been really quite significant. The response was so heavy, as a matter of fact — so I'm advised, anyway — that it's going to take some time to analyze all of the material.

All those who decided to take the response document, which was the companion volume to the original document, answer all of the questions, and put forth their views of what they expect the public education system to deliver, are entitled to have each of their views analyzed and coded. In addition to that, as you know, there are extensive interviews going on throughout the province at this time by the polling agency that was retained by the public school act review committee. I might mention that all of those documents, as I said yesterday, will be made public immediately — not by government. It won't be held up or put in a closet for the appropriate time. I'm quite prepared to listen to all comments. Obviously some are going to be favourable towards government, others are not. But that's life. I think that if I make comments with respect to what the School Act is going to contain, it would be rather presumptuous of me.

I don't know whether or not the member agrees with that, but I have held fast to the commitment I made many months ago that I would not advance my views and make them public to any particular body while the public was advancing its views; while, in fact, the research committee is analyzing all of the responses, and during the time that the report is compiled, prepared, written and delivered, together with all of the accompanying material. You can rest assured that that report will obviously have considerable influence on the structure of a proposed School Act.

I think I've covered the items that you have raised, the first involving controversial issues, the second on family life programs. The reorganization of the ministry: yes, it's smaller than it once was. I think there has been a great deal of emphasis, when we consider that only one division in the ministry is involved with finance; the others are involved with curriculum, examinations, certification, facilities, construction and statistics. They're all there. I think we have also been able to canvass those matters which are related purely to education, as distinct from the funding of public education, graduation requirements, curriculum content and external exams.

[4:15]

I conclude my remarks by repeating that when it's over with, what I.... My object here is obviously to get the autonomy back to school districts and to keep the ministry as a nucleus only. I think jobs can be done very well by districts. To confine the job of the ministry to the areas of finance, certification, curriculum and examinations — that is the object. The period we're going through now has been a difficult one. As a matter of policy, government felt that these were areas that required checking at this time. I will just remind the member that those comments were advanced at the time Bill 6 came in.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) for giving me a few moments here. I'd like to talk to the minister and have him reply, hopefully, regarding the future of university transfer programs at the Castlegar campus of Selkirk College, as well as other aspects involving that college and, I suppose, colleges in general around the province.

A year ago, or two years ago — whenever it was — the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson was closed. As many courses as could be were absorbed into Selkirk

[ Page 5662 ]

College, both at Castlegar and at Nelson, but fundamentally at Castlegar, in order to maintain those courses at the first and second-year levels. What happened is that following that absorption in the previous year, in the current year the minister ordered the college to reduce its overall expenditure by 10 percent. The Selkirk College budget for the present year has been reduced by $1 million, or 10 percent over the previous level. The previous level was already cut to the bone due to previous cuts, as well as to this enforced absorption of whatever could be salvaged out of the closing of the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson.

This year's cut was the largest single cut, in percentage terms, that any community college in the province had to absorb. I would like the minister to reconsider these cuts and certainly to reconsider any further cuts in future years at Selkirk College.

The community college system is a very precious part of post-secondary education in British Columbia. Less than half of the people who do go on to post-secondary training in the metropolitan urban areas of the province — essentially those within commuting distance of Simon Fraser, UBC or UVic.... Less than half of the people who attend these universities go to post-secondary education if they are from the so-called rural areas of the province — although I do not like the term "rural areas, " because B.C. is not a rural province; it's a collection of small- and medium-sized cities. But, Mr. Chairman, people who live in your riding of Prince George or Trail or Kelowna or smaller communities such as Princeton or 100 Mile House pay the same taxes for post-secondary education as people who live in Victoria or Vancouver. Yet less than half as many of those people, as a percentage of the potential, go to universities as do those who live within commuting distance of the universities. Considering the cost of going to university, in terms not only of the fee structure and living costs but of giving up income, this is not surprising.

The community colleges were supposed to at least partly fill this gap. But the problem that has happened with many community colleges — and I think Selkirk College is typical — is that, with the cuts the minister and his predecessors have imposed on them, to all intents and purposes the second-year parts of the degree-granting programs and university transfer programs have been virtually emasculated. So really the community college — and I'm thinking particularly of Selkirk — consists essentially of two-year technologies and grade 13, or first year of university. Those second-year programs at the transfer level which still do exist are those which are an integral part of fulfilling the requirements of one of the two-year technologies.

Giving an example, if a certain economics course at the second-year university level is needed specifically, say, for the two-year commerce program, then that economics course will be there; but other courses in economics at the second year level will not be there. The same thing could be said of physics — if there's a physics course that's essential for the commercial pilot training, the forest technology or the nursing program, it will be there. If it's a physics course with other orientation, it will have gone. I believe this same pattern has been repeated around the province, Mr. Chairman.

Less than ten years ago in 1976, perhaps the most modern — certainly at that time one of the most modern and best equipped — recreational facility at any community college was opened in Castlegar. Now, less than ten years beyond that time, that facility is in danger of being closed, not because the college council wants to close it but because they've got to make some hard decisions about what they do with their money. Here you have a community facility used by the college — supported by the community with user fees, I might add, and fairly stiff user fees — in danger of being closed. This is a facility, I want to repeat, which is bought and paid for by the taxpayers of this province. It's in danger of being closed because the college council quite seriously has to look at that facility and say: "We've got to cut out some of our programs." Perhaps recreation is something that is going to have to be chopped out in order to make sure that they can maintain the nursing program or the computer program or the wildland recreation program or the forest program or one of the many excellent two-year technology programs which are delivered by that institution.

So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf not only of my constituents in the West Kootenays but of all those taxpayers who do not live within commuting distance of one of the major universities.... And I'm not just talking about high-school graduate students — that is, those young people who have just graduated from high school — I'm talking about adults who want access to a university education. They want a second or a third chance to live at home, to work in their community, to bring in an income for their family, and at the same time to improve themselves academically. These people no longer have the same opportunities that they had even two or three years ago to make proper use of the community college program to prepare themselves for further post-secondary training as, perhaps, at one of the metropolitan institutions.

So I appeal to the minister. I ask you to attempt to persuade your cabinet colleagues and Treasury Board to restore the funding, at least partially but hopefully fully, for the community college system. It has been stated that the 1982-86 cuts to the community colleges equal 43 percent in constant dollars. At the same time enrolment in those community colleges continues to grow. Certainly not for lack of business.... Enrolment, in spite of increased fees, continues to grow in the community colleges.

It's growing because the people of B.C., whether they are 19- or 20-year-olds or whether they are 30-, 40-, 50- or 60-year-olds, want those programs. They want those university transfer programs at the first- and second-year level, and they want those technologies. That's because they want to work. They want the opportunity either to improve their ability to improve their income standard or to get a job at all.

The colleges have had a major role in upgrading the general level of training, the general level of academic education in the province. I think we should remember that. We should remember what those colleges were established for. We should remember what a large investment the taxpayers of the province have in the college system. And we should sustain the programs in those colleges, because the people want them. The people are enrolling in programs; they are taking courses. They are passing their technologies, and in many cases, in spite of the bad job market, they're finding jobs because of what they get out of those college programs. I don't want to see them eliminated.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would like to make reference to the reduction this year — to the member for Rossland-Trail — for Selkirk. I don't believe it was 10 percent; I think it was 6.2 percent over last year's budget.

[ Page 5663 ]

I would like to point out something else, and this came up during the debate last year when we were discussing David Thompson University Centre. As you know, we take the province and divide it into regions, and we look at what the per capita cost is per region. By far — and I mean by far — the highest cost per capita for the operation of a regional college was in the Selkirk region. It seems to me that it was something in the order of — including David Thompson — $260 or $270 per capita. With the exclusion of David Thompson, the cost per capita in the Selkirk region is now $218.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would just like to compare that cost with other districts. We can go to the lower mainland and look at Douglas College, and the cost per capita is $58. Or we can go to the area where I am elected, Prince George, and the per capita cost is $135. As far as tuition is concerned — and I think it's reasonable when I ask what the tuition is — I am told that it's something in the order of about $600 per year. I could be corrected. Is that correct? My deputy has just pointed out that it's $575, which I think is quite reasonable in view of the costs that others have in other forms of higher learning within the province.

One of the reasons that Selkirk.... As you recall, it was one of the first regional campuses that went in, and it was a very expensive campus. I don't think that that's a secret which anybody is keeping to themselves. When you compare Selkirk with the other regional colleges, you find that there was a considerable amount of funding going in. The object under the new funding formula for colleges was to bring equity to all of the regions of British Columbia. That's why there was such significant support from the administrators for the funding mechanism which was put in about a year and a half ago. There was significant support, including from the board of Selkirk College and its administration.

I must be fair and tell the member that I do know that the college principal, Leo Perra, feels that things are a little tight right now. That's conceded, but Mr. Perra and the board also give recognition to what we as a ministry are trying to do in using the funding mechanism to bring equity. The same comment was made last year, incidentally, by the former principal of Vancouver Community College, who found that there was a great improvement even though Vancouver Community College is an area where the student population is significant.

In Selkirk the second-year enrolment this year is higher than it was the previous year. I am advised that some courses which they dropped were no different than other courses which may have been dropped in other colleges through lack of interest or demand. I can't give you specific examples. If you have anything specific which you would like to raise with me, I'd be most prepared to try to secure an answer for you as soon as I can.

[4:30]

I would only like to raise again that I was pleased this year that the government did allot 100 percent in total for funding of community colleges — 100 percent of the 1984-85 amount, even with the adjustment fund. We discussed the adjustment fund yesterday and what it contained and what we would expect in return.

I understand there was some decline in the apprenticeship area, and this is common not just to Selkirk College but also to a number of colleges in the province involving the area of apprenticeship. You know, one of the biggest disappointments I think I've ever had since I've been in government happened as a result of the recession and the economic downturn that we experienced. When I was in the Labour portfolio, the greatest push that I ever made on anything in that area was to increase the apprenticeship enrolment in British Columbia. I think I can say with some pride that the apprenticeship was increased from something in the order of 11,000 up to something in the order of better than 19,000; it was almost 20,000. It was a very significant increase. That was accomplished mostly through sweat off my brow, pummeling everybody to assume their responsibilities. Of course, at that time the colleges were absorbing many of the apprenticeship programs throughout the province. But since that, through the times that we've experienced in the last two or three years, we have seen a significant decline in apprenticeships. Those apprenticeships are in your area as well.

The only comforting item that I would like to offer is this: government has recognized that the productivity in the college system has been really quite significant. They are to be commended for the work they have done. The response which the board chairman and college principals gave was an encouraging one. There was an additional $2.4 million put in, 95 percent to 96 percent for operating, and the balance is available to be used in a number of ways.

Incidentally, with respect to.... I know there's a cross in here; I'm talking Rossland-Trail and then into Nelson-Creston, because we have part of Selkirk College with the Rosemont campus in Nelson-Creston. As I recall, some of the funding which we have for the satellite campus was to assist.... One of the things that I was concerned about, with the reductions we had experienced, was how it would affect some of the satellite campuses. For Selkirk there was funding in the satellite campus allocation to look after some of the demands made by the Rosemont campus.

Another point was made yesterday: the attendance in colleges provincewide. The figures which we have show an increase each year over the last four or five years. At this time the highest number of college graduates have gone — 30.2 percent of high school graduates are taking either academic or technical programs at the college level. That doesn't include vocational, and I don't have the figures for that, as I mentioned yesterday, and of course it doesn't include university.

MR. ROSE: I have.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Good. I'll hear them in due course, no doubt.

MR. ROSE: Right now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's fine. I hope that we're getting our figures from the same source.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't get yours from BCTF.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't they talk to you? BCTF are experts.

AN HON. MEMBER: BCSTA?

[ Page 5664 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, to relieve any anxiety which the opposition may be having, I'd like them to know that we also often have conversations with each of the organs that you have referred to.

I want the member for Rossland-Trail to know that I recognize that the Selkirk region is the highest-funded per capita in British Columbia. The reason that they're feeling a little bit tight in places right now is that the phase-in allowance which was given to them of course has been reduced. The reason it has been reduced is that we wanted to bring some form of equity.

One of the concerns I have.... Through the talking that was going on I didn't hear the campus or the building to which you were referring — about how there might be a closure.

MR. D'ARCY: The gymnasium and recreational facilities.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The gymnasium and recreational facility at Selkirk? Okay, I will take note of that.

MR. D'ARCY: Just a few quick points. First of all I want to say that I recognize.... When I used the figure of a 10 percent cut, that was before you restored some of the funding and reduced the cut to 6 percent. I apologize for that. However, having said that, I want to point out that if we assume inflation in 1985 to be 4 percent, which I think is a reasonable projection, the cut in constant dollars will still be 10 percent from the previous year. However, let's go on to more important things.

The minister is correct that per capita there is a large community college spending amount there relative to other areas. I'd like to point out, though, that that's a fair comparison only if you compare similar programs. If you compare the nursing program at Selkirk-Castlegar with say a nursing program at Camosun and come up with a higher figure, that's one thing. But surely the minister is aware that one of the most expensive programs there, maybe the most expensive program at any community college anywhere in British Columbia, is the commercial pilot training program. It's the only place in B.C. that has a commercial pilot training program. Students come from all across Canada; they come from the United States. I presume it's the presumption that it's not only academically and technically a good place to have commercial pilot training. You have flown into the Castlegar airport. The presumption is that if you can fly in and out of there you can fly in and out of anywhere. It has a very good reputation, and graduates from that program, even in today's not very healthy state of the airline industry, have an extremely good record of finding and keeping employment, both as pilots and as air traffic controllers, in Canada and the United States.

Also, Mr. Chairman, there are two forestry technologies at Selkirk College Castlegar: shall I call it commercial or logging forestry, as well as wildland recreation forestry technology. Again, I want to remind the minister that these two programs are comparatively costly to deliver. There is a computer technology program that goes back to the 1960s. Of course it's been enhanced and improved as technology has improved over the years — once again, an extremely expensive program to deliver.

So if the minister wants to compare these programs against similar programs in other institutions elsewhere and tell me that they've got a soft touch there, then I'm prepared to agree with him, if he in fact has that information. But simply to take an overall global figure without comparing specific programs is an unfair comparison, with all respect.

I just want to make one other point. The minister mentioned that the number of apprentices in the region, especially at the Rosemont campus in Nelson, has declined. This is not because people don't want to take apprenticeships. It's not because apprentices don't have confidence in the college training. It's because as industry in the region got leaner and meaner — it didn't shut down, but basically got leaner and meaner — they were forced to cut back on their staff, and that meant they had to cut back on their trade staff. The first people to go when you cut back on your trade staff are the newest people, and those are the apprentices. And even though we have some apprentices who might be 40 or 50 years old and have 30 years' seniority in the plant, if they're new as apprentices in the millwright shop or the electrician shop or the instrument shop, they are very quickly the first, not necessarily to get laid off in the plant but to have to bump back into an operations job. I want to point out that there's been good cooperation between the ministry and the college, and both management and the unions in the plants, to try and keep on as many apprentices as possible, especially if they were nearing the end of their program so they didn't lose their whole thing by being laid off. But even so there has been, as the minister pointed out, a great reduction in the number of apprentices taking training at the Rosemont campus. That's because of the state of the economy in general, not because of a decline in desire for apprenticeship programs.

One last point, the last point for now, anyway.... One further point would perhaps be better terminology. Selkirk College actually has three campuses. It has the Rosemont campus in Nelson and the Castlegar campus. It also has a Trail campus that is primarily a business school. The lease on the building will be running out — not this year but next year — and some concern has been expressed locally that the college is not going to be allowed to renew that lease and continue a campus in Trail with their business college. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that a business college in Trail is a long tradition; it did not start with Selkirk College. There has been a business college in Trail going back to at least 1950. Again, the technology there, the graduates there are highly respected, both within and outside of the region. Their employment record, even in this economy, is very good. I want to express my concern to the minister in advance: when that present lease runs out in the fall of 1986, that the college council and the administration of the college have the opportunity to renew that lease, either in that building or in some other building, and continue the operation of the Trail campus of Selkirk College.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The first question involved the cost of the nursing program, as I recall.

MR. D'ARCY: Aviation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, no. You raised two programs. You were talking about the cost, as I recall, and the comparative....

MR. D'ARCY: I said you have to compare similar programs in similar colleges.

[4:45]

[ Page 5665 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Right. The point I wish to make is that under the funding mechanism the actual cost of one particular program is generally recognized in one of the areas. It involves either a nursing or medical program of some kind. Where there is a distinction, however, is in the aviation program. I am told that the students who wish to enrol in that program pay a fee, and that fee is to an agency which is contracted. Selkirk College contracts with a particular flying school. The students themselves, I guess like anywhere else in the province, have to pay a fee. There is some additional funding given; however, it is not anywhere near what the cost is. One of the reasons is that we find that tremendous distinction between the per capita cost in the Selkirk region as compared to the provincial average when we look to other colleges.

The apprenticeship program gave so much concern to the ministry and the colleges, particularly those students who were in their fourth year and ready to get their journeyman certificate, that a simulation program was created by Selkirk Community College for those apprentices who in fact were forced to become unemployed as a result of, as you mentioned, the leaner and meaner times. So while they were unemployed, at least they had that opportunity, through the simulation program, to get their ticket. That seems to me a pretty good plug for your college.

Funding is not available for the Trail campus under the moneys advanced this year, as far as a satellite campus is concerned. However, that issue is being reviewed and will be reviewed by the joint committee involved in the discussion of satellite campuses. It's given me a bit of a problem this year, as you probably know. That committee, as I mentioned — I'm not sure if I did — does consist of six or seven principals from the various colleges.

To be honest with you, I'm quite amazed at the very close relationship which exists between the staff in the Ministry of Education and the college administrators.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's an unacceptable remark. I think there's a very good relationship, and I think everybody has gained by it. I like to see this type of cooperation, and it is occurring.

As far as the Trail campus is concerned, the news is that the funding is not available. I think the member knew that. But it's something that will be reviewed by the joint committee looking at the satellite campus possibility.

I think we must remember that the distance between Trail and Castlegar is not all that much — something like 25 miles.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Twenty-two miles, but there's no transit. Well, I can't respond to that question. This is the argument that's being pushed by people throughout the province. I think that's what we as a government have to be very careful about. The whole system could be bled to death by the desire of people in some very small communities which aren't that far apart to put in campuses, when perhaps there is a more regional centre that most people can attend. I'm against the concept, I guess, of the regional college.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I know this question has been asked before, but I have to admit I don't quite understand the answer. It's with regard to the interim legislation that is in place, which takes away some of the legislative rights of school boards under the School Act, mainly their ability to raise some taxation without going to referendum. When is that going to end? I know that the legislation is supposed to end at the end of 1986, but it seems to me that unless there's a clear directive from the ministry to school boards letting them know for sure that it's going to end at the end of 1986, then by default that legislation is going to be carried over for a further six months.

I'd like to know if the minister has made up his mind whether he's going to send a directive. What is he going to indicate to the school boards? Is there a chance that that legislation will be extended past December 1986, or is the minister going to indicate to the school boards that it ends for sure at the end of 1986?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the sunset provision, December 31, 1986, is really quite clear. I recognize what you're saying. I don't think we can, by default...because where in fact would we have our authority? Something has to be done to take the place of legislation which is in place right now.

My objective in having the discussion on schools is to bring in either a White Paper or a bill, which will be prepared as soon as I receive the report. I would dearly love to have that report no later than the first week of May. There's obviously been a great deal of concern with respect to autonomy. Autonomy was eroded, budgets were capped — all conceded.

There has been considerable concern by school districts as to what's going to happen in the future. The commitment that I make is that I wish to bring in a new School Act as soon as I have the material. I have no intention of starting to prepare any such documentation until I hear what the people who have responded have to say. I guess the best I can give the member for Prince Rupert is that obviously there has to be a mechanism available to school districts to generate revenue for their purposes. In order to do that, they were going to have to have access to a tax base. I think that's about as far as I'm prepared to go.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister, then, to transpose himself into being a school trustee. I would like to ask the minister what his advice would be to school boards and to school trustees who have to work up a budget not knowing whether they're going to have access to some taxation budget. How are they going to work up a budget? They're going to be working up a budget at the time that this interim legislation is in effect, which will preclude them from working their budget out for the full fiscal year — July to July, if I'm not mistaken.

So they can't possibly work a budget out without a directive from the ministry or from government telling them exactly what's going to happen. If they have to do it under this interim legislation, they're required to do it by the terms of the interim legislation. They have no other choice. So along comes the end of 1986 and there's automatically a default six month extension. So they can't work out a budget. It's an impossibility.

So I would ask the minister to tell me what he would do if he were a trustee working under that sort of onus. What would you do, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 5666 ]

HON MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the current budget, or the one which is being prepared now, is to cover the period from July 1, 1985, to June 30, 1986. Now the budget for July 1, 1986, to June 30, 1987, will be prepared and is to be submitted by March 1986. I don't think we disagree on that. So I would suggest that when we have a new School Act.... And it could be available — I don't know — sometime this summer or sometime next fall. It may happen in early 1986.

The issue to which you refer is one which must be resolved. The reason it must be resolved is that the amount of money which is collected during the first week in July 1986 covers the calendar year of 1986 — January to December. I think what trustees can expect is to see something coming — there ought to be some indication, I would hope, this year as to how we are going to resolve that — and certainly they should have some guidance as to what is going to happen for the year 1986-87, when they must submit their budgets by March 15, 1986, for 1986-87.

MR. LEA: But, Mr. Chairman, obviously a school board doesn't start putting its budget together a week before they have to submit it. That starts in the fall. How can they start in the fall when they don't know what's going to happen? The minister says: "But there may be some legislation coming in down the road that may do something." I am asking the minister what he would do if he were a trustee. What sort of question would you ask yourself if you were a trustee? How can they start putting their budget together when they don't know what legislation they are going to be dealing with? It's an impossibility.

So just the mere fact that you are going to ask school boards to put it together in a rush is, I think, irresponsible — to ask them to try and put a budget together in that timeframe. I don't see what is so difficult with this question. The question that I've asked is: if the minister were a trustee, what action would he take? Once he gives me the answer to that then I can go to the school trustees in my constituency and say: "Well, here's the advice from the minister".

I am not getting that answer from the minister. All the minister is saying is that there may be a White Paper, there may be legislation, and we don't know what's going to be in it — or at least the school trustees don't, and I assume that the minister doesn't know either, from what he was saying because he is waiting to have a report before he puts it together. Mr. Chairman, if the minister were a school trustee having to work up a budget for the year 1986-87, what would he do? How would he deal with that? Would he say to his staff: "Don't bother doing anything until the early spring, or January or February of 1986"? I'm going to be meeting with my school board in Prince Rupert on Sunday. What should I tell them you told me? Will I be able to tell them something that makes sense?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, when all budgets are prepared, it seems to me that every school board works on a basic set of assumptions involving enrolment — whether it's going up, whether it's going down, what their costs are going to be. We know that. Now tell me, how have they worked out budgets over the past little while?

AN HON. MEMBER: About three times a year is how they did it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I would put it to you that that's not unusual, and if all they've worked it out is three times per year then I don't know if every board has done it enough times. When you are talking about $1.9 billion annually, it seems to me that working out budgets....

MR. ROSE: It's not to the school boards.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As far as your grants are concerned, $1.5 billion total — $1.9 billion in public education.

The only commitment which I can give is that I intend to resolve that particular issue.

MR. LEA: In time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As soon as I can.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, how am I...? Mr. Chairman, I can't turn around and stand here and tell you that a piece of legislation which expires December 31, 1986.... We've got to address that issue. We know we must address the issue; that's why we put a sunset provision in it. What is going to take its place is a new piece of legislation. And the sooner we get at it the better.

[5:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA: On Sunday when I meet with my school board, I'll say: "Well, you're in the dark. As trustees responsible to the citizens and the parents and the students of this constituency, the minister has no answer for you. Start putting your budget together, not knowing what legislation you're going to be working with — whether it's going to be the old School Act, whether the interim act is going to be extended, or whether some new act that may require something completely different.... It's ridiculous. They can't work under those circumstances, and I think that it would be irresponsible of them to even try. So my message to them is: "No answer from the minister. You're in the dark. Do the best you can, and hope for the best." That's all I have to tell them.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back a little bit to Selkirk College. The minister talked about equity around the province.

Number one, he kind of assumes that because we call these places regional colleges they are 100 percent regional colleges, when in fact you have students from Kitimat, from Dawson Creek, from other provinces and, as my colleague says, even from the United States attending Selkirk College, as indeed is the case with students from the Kootenays going up to Northern Lights or coming to the Island to Malaspina for special programs. If you want to.... I think there's an excellent program in commercial diving at Malaspina — I've heard about that — or there's something that's very useful to people going into marine biology, at least, up at that college. Well, the point is, whether that's the case or not, that they are not purely regional colleges.

Number two, in terms of the cost per capita, is that in the Kootenays there are perhaps some sociological reasons why there are higher participation rates at the community colleges than maybe in other areas. It might have something to do with the fact that as a province we have failed miserably in getting

[ Page 5667 ]

a reasonable participation rate from native peoples. Also, of course, in the Selkirk College area there is not, to my knowledge, one single Indian band. So if you put those two facts together — the fact that we have failed miserably in terms of getting much of a participation rate from native peoples, and that we don't have any Indian bands and very few native people in that particular area, although there is a small band over in Creston, but they're part of the East Kootenay Regional College — and you add to that the very high number of professional people to be found in government services and at Cominco and at the pulp mill, and so on, you find a very high participation rate of students.

You could look to all kinds of different things, but what it really comes down to, the real equity question, is that here in British Columbia we have a very low participation rate of students going on to post-secondary education. If the people in the West Kootenays happen to be reaching a national average, it's something that I'm afraid we're just not going to apologize for. The people in the Kootenays took the initiative to build post-secondary educational facilities back in 1952 in the form of Notre Dame University, and the people in the Kootenays have always placed a very high priority on education. They have put their money where their mouth was, and that so-called expensive college was built by a referendum prior to government relaxing some of the regulations. We made a decision that we would cooperate, and we would go with a central main campus at Castlegar in order that we could have one strong campus as opposed to being split up, as they are in the Okanagan and many other areas where they have reached other political compromises and other political realities of the type of demography and such that prevailed at that time. But it was not just a fairly expensive campus, it was one of the first. It was the first major capital campus outside of the lower mainland in terms of capital expenditure. It was supported by a referendum, and it got a majority in the three participating school districts at that time. There are other participating school districts in the area.

So this whole business of equity.... I wish the minister would drop that argument. I find it very offensive, because if you were to follow the logic of that argument then you've got to look at an area like the lower mainland, you've got to throw in the universities and the colleges and the one-of-a-kind institutions like PVI and BCIT and everything else, and say, okay, that's what we're spending per capita. It just doesn't wash. I don't think it's helpful to any kind of dialogue. The major thing is the lack of participation in British Columbia, the fact that we're spending 3.5 or 3.4 percent of our gross domestic product on education, whereas we're spending 5 percent nationally, and in other provinces like Ontario they're spending more than that. We don't have the students. It reflects the low participation rate that we have.

The government talks about so much money coming in and so on. This government is spending more and more money. There is no restraint. Look at the increase in actual expenditures last year over the previous year — not in terms of what the budget was. This member talks about budgets. Well, this government comes up with two budgets a year. They come up with a budget that's presented as estimates and then they come up with something they call "revised estimates" at the end of the year. They always make their comparisons with the revised estimates. Yet if you want to look at the real growth in spending year to year, you have to look at revised estimates over revised estimates. We had a huge increase in budget last year. But the priorities were all wrong.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: No, certainly not in education.

Mr. Chairman, I have visited Selkirk College many times over the years since it was first established, but the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), the member for Boundary Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and I were recently invited to a two-day tour of the campuses, and the concerns were brought forward to us at that time. One of the things that came out was one of the very exciting programs going on at the Rosemont campus. I would like the minister to give me his commitment one way or another as to whether he supports the tremendous fire truck restoration program that is going on.

Mr. Chairman, one of the programs brought about because of the drop in actual indentured apprentices, which was brought about very largely due to some government measures such as increasing water licence fees and sort of killing the program that was going on at Trail and all the apprentices that were hired there.... They came up with the simulated work program. One of the very meaningful things that is being done is the restoration of fire trucks. This involves heavy-duty mechanics, welders, all kinds of different tradespeople, electrical trades and so on, in rebuilding these trucks. These trucks get a certification which is equivalent to a brand-new truck coming off the line. They're finding their way into the area particularly of rural volunteer fire departments which are starting to take hold under the regional districts. People are supporting this with their tax dollars, through referenda, throughout the area.

There is some concern that there is some objection. It's this old private sector public sector thing. I want to know from the minister: does he give this program his full and unqualified support?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the fire truck restoration program, as the member knows, is heavily funded by the federal government. I'm advised that the ministry is now negotiating with CEIC, I guess it is, to preserve that program. The advice that I get is that it is a very attractive and most worthwhile program; there isn't any question about it. I understand there were objections from somebody from the lower mainland with respect to that, but certainly our thrust in the ministry ought to be to do whatever we can to preserve it. The reason is that it's obviously an excellent instrument for those students who are on the TRAC program. I give you my commitment that we are working on concluding funding for it.

There's just one other thing. If you want to take offence at the comment with respect to equity throughout the province, I would just like to draw a comparison between two interior areas: the Okanagan area, where it's about $108 or $110 per capita, versus the Selkirk region. Let's divorce the lower mainland argument from it, because I think you have a point. If you want to consolidate everything in the lower mainland and throw everything in together, then I think there is merit to your argument. But when I start talking and looking at even comparing equity in various areas within the province outside of the lower mainland, then we do find it. I know in the Prince George area it's $135. In the Selkirk area it's 200-and-some-odd dollars. That is not an argument advanced for any particular reason other than to demonstrate that I think that there is a fair share of the funding for colleges moving into the area which you represent, if you're going to talk about the Selkirk campus.

[ Page 5668 ]

There is one other point. Are you aware that in the Selkirk region the highest number of high-school graduates go to post-secondary? The figures which we have indicate that almost 45 percent of high-school graduates from that area are in a college somewhere in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: I wasn't aware that the figure was quite that, but I know that historically participation rates from our area have been very high. Again, I think it's largely due to the presence of companies like Cominco, a high public service component and other fairly good job bases, such as the pulp mill in Castlegar and others that have existed in that area.

I would like to say too, though, that we see these cutbacks in our area. We see money being taken out of our area. We see money being spent at an almost profligate rate, concentrated at the present time, I suppose, on the lower mainland. Maybe a year ago I would have said on northeast coal.

You know that what has happened.... There are lost wages, for instance, just at Selkirk College, resulting from the layoffs between 1980 and 1985: 23 positions terminated in administration, 69 positions terminated or reduced in terms of instructors and 80 positions terminated or reduced in support staff. This adds up to a loss of $4.4 million. You know, that is an incredible loss. For instance, if we were to look at the obverse side of that, if we were to be announcing the startup of a new plant that was going to generate a payroll over the next, say, five years of $4.4 million, we would think that was a very major announcement. Yet that is what we have reduced. We've sort of shut down a plant in that respect with what we've done. We don't see that money being spent back in the area in alternative-type programs, not in accelerated programs.

We see, of course, continuation of certain day-to-day things. We still see lottery grants and things coming in. But we don't see the expenditure of the accelerated programs that are going on in some of the major megaprojects in the area. So that money is largely being taken out of that area. That area has produced a lot of wealth in this province historically. It continues to, and I think it should continue to.

[5:15]

We see that back in 1982-83 they took a step with the library to reduce weekend hours, and for 1985-86 they're going to have to close weekend hours as far as libraries are concerned. We see that the community education services.... We've seen the discontinuance of full-time administrative personnel in Midway, Kettle Valley and Grand Forks in '82-83, in Nakusp for '85-86, the reduction of part time in the Slocan valley back in '82-83 and also in Salmo '85-86. We've seen the discontinuance of physical education programs, and now they are contemplating having to shut down and moth-ball the gymnasium, which was opened only a few years ago. The impact of this on cultural activities has been incredible.

There is one other thing I would like to ask the minister. Would it not be possible.... The minister is being briefed, and I don't want to run ahead too far. This is quite a different question, and has to do with the DTUC campus.

The DTUC campus is finding some use for social events, and the summer school of the arts will be held there again this year. But there is only one really adequate theatre facility in all of Nelson, and it is in the bottom portion of one of the student residences. I think it's called St. Martin's Hall. Right now, for International Youth Year, a group that's rehearsing in the old student union building would like to use and to perform in that facility in St. Martin's Hall. I believe people have been in touch with Mr. Parker of the minister's department. People have also been in touch with the city and the city administrator, and it seems to be not possible; I guess it's not possible unless some ministerial discretion is used. I'd like to ask the minister if that could be considered, because we have suffered a tremendous loss in the arts since the loss of DTUC. There have been some great plays, some original plays produced in that facility, and I think a facility like that should be used.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nelson-Creston, I will take note of your request and see whether or not there's something we can accommodate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would appreciate it if you would. But I will see.... You referred to the building as St. Martin's?

MR. NICOLSON: I believe that's the building it's housed in.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll see what we can do for that, because we've got to come to a resolution on the utilization of those facilities, and I hope it's sooner rather than later.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions that do not relate to colleges which I'd like to put to the minister because I think they're topical, and I'd like to raise two or three things arising from the debate of yesterday — some further information that I have. I may say a word or two about colleges, but my colleague for Nanaimo wants to get on; so you can breathe a sigh of relief that I won't be speaking until six o'clock.

The three-man budget review advisory team — or BRAT, as I choose to call it....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why?

MR. ROSE: Because budget review advisory team is an acronym.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's hyphenated. Hyphenated doesn't really deserve its own initial. Besides, it ruins the acronym. It absolutely destroys the acronym, as well as the pungent meaning that goes with the acronym. So it's laden with meaning — for some boards.

Now this three-man committee, which has in its membership one of the minister's neighbours, was supposed to examine the school boards and report by April 12. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not that committee has reported and when he intends to make that report public.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I have received an interim report, which came in on Monday, I think it was. I intend to make it public, but I am not ready to do so at this particular time. But I can assure the member that the document will be a public document.

[ Page 5669 ]

MR. ROSE: Could I ask the minister why it was necessary to set up a special team for this purpose, when within the ministry's own department there are budget and management officials?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable debate with respect to one particular board in British Columbia. That particular board has been taking issue since time immemorial — since I have been in the portfolio — with respect to the framework and the new method of funding. I felt it was important that an independent tribunal or committee — whatever you want to call it — analyze and present options, because the immediate accusations which are made.... And I would expect you, as opposition, to make them. If someone within the ministry who in fact had been the author of a particular method of funding were to turn around and do an analysis of a district, it seems to me that that would be a self-serving document. Therefore, to preserve the credibility of the process, we have three independent people with a wealth of experience in the area do an analysis and present options. That's all we're looking for: what other options could have been considered? The real question is: were there any other options considered? And that's why I felt it necessary.

MR. ROSE: I can understand why the minister would like to have a sort of arm's-length distance from any interference in a highly objective, or possibly even partisan, way by this team. I understand he feels the same way about the "Let's Talk About Schools" process. He said yesterday that he felt at arm's length.... Yet the chairman of that process is his own deputy minister, which is hardly arm's length. If this thing is similar — an arm's-length, objective team — you'll have difficulty in convincing a lot of people, even though this particular troika, or hit squad, that was invented for this particular purpose of intimidating certain boards.... Two of them in particular have hosted this team. There probably will be more. Does the minister intend to send this team around the province, as long as there are needs budgets out there, without the kinds of budgets that fit the framework, coming from certain districts?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I have every confidence that by the end of the month school districts will submit compliance budgets.

MR. ROSE: Has the minister's confidence been bolstered by the fact that he recently wrote them a letter suggesting steps he would take if they did not comply? Has the minister written a letter recently to boards who have submitted needs budgets, suggesting certain steps the ministry might take if these boards didn't knuckle under?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no. The letter which I sent to each of the boards that were submitting needs budgets was a request for information which they as boards had considered in the preparation of their budgets — whether it be a needs budget or a compliance budget, or whatever other name they decided to append to it.

MR. ROSE: The minister has submitted.... Excuse me, Mr. Premier, I can't see the enlightened Minister of Education. When you march in front of him, it's just like the sun going behind the mountain.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The moon and the stars.

Would the minister please confirm that there has been no special letter sent to boards that have submitted needs budgets in defiance of the minister's demand for a compliance budget?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, a couple of letters have been sent, but I can assure you those letters did not contain the information or the demands which you seem to be implying, that the budget review team would be visiting them.

MR. ROSE: Was anything else suggested in the letter that would happen to them if they refused to send in compliance budgets by the end of this month? If so, what was stated by the department in that regard?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would have to get copies of the correspondence. You no doubt have a copy there that I sent out.

MR. ROSE: That's what you think I have, don't you?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I don't know, but I think what I ought to do.... I believe the answer to the question is no, but I would like to have a look at the correspondence.

MR. ROSE: I just happen to have here in my hand some other notes. I don't have the letter. That's too bad, isn't it? I can always get this offending letter.

The minister then confirms the fact that he has not sent any threatening letters to those districts, threatening to cut off funds or replace them with a public trustee, or any threats of that nature'?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know the answer to that.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm not certain. There was a news broadcast to that effect the other day, and I didn't know the source of it, and that's why I asked. So I suppose you could call this a fishing expedition. You thought it was an ambush, which is fine. That's all part of the game here, I understand.

I'd like to raise a couple of things that were brought up as a result of the discussions that we had yesterday, and the minister was — I guess it would be fair to say "mildly," as is the minister's personality — boasting somewhat about the success that his framework had had, and the acceptance that it had with secretary-treasurers throughout the province.

[5:30]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: At least I can control him over here. You'll notice that I've taken an arm's-length approach to my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, apparently there is a brief that was submitted to the minister out of 85 from these highly appreciative trustees that were so happy to receive the framework from the minister, which says in part that the restraint program has been carried so far that it's becoming counterproductive. "Staff reductions, cutbacks in expenditures for supplies, maintenance and the like have in most instances reached the

[ Page 5670 ]

point where further cuts, in our view, will result in serious dysfunctional consequences."

Now they may approve of the pigeon-holing that exists within those functions, but obviously they're not that happy about how the global funds have been tightened to the point where a lot of difficulty is arising in various districts. So that seems to be in direct contradiction to what the minister said the other day.

We can expect that over the next 18 months costs will rise for existing service levels. School districts will apparently have no way of meeting these expenditures, and to a large extent are powerless to do much about the reduction of their expenditures, partly because they're locked into prior commitments such as contracts with teachers, particularly for the first six months of this year. Many of them are in a legal catch-22 situation that the Minister of Finance will be unable to rescue them from.

Did the minister want to respond to that part, or do you want me to go on? Well, maybe I'd better ask another question or two, so the minister can take note of it. What assurance do districts have that any teacher salary increases that might be approved by the commissioner after a school district has followed all those procedures prescribed by the government for salary arbitration, compensation stabilization...? What assurances are there that these will be recognized and necessary additional funding provided? The minister says there won't be any. So what happens to the districts? Any salary adjustment by the infamous Mr. Peck, who was just kneecapped by the Minister of Finance.... Any of those increases will be carried forward in these budgets through 1985-86.

It seems to me that the boards will find themselves either in a contractual difficulty with their own staff, or have to face the prospect of going over budget. The minister has already — well, I was going to say announced — directed stern measures against one district, notably Delta, that did that. So here we have the choice. You may not be able to meet the ratios that are prescribed by the Finance minister. You could go over budget and incur a deficit. I would like to know whether the minister has decided to revise that framework so that the secretary's advice is followed where they said the bottom line of a financial framework is not providing reasonable funds for public education operations at all. Even with all the economies that have been affected, school districts are not receiving enough funding to operate already reduced programs. As we said at the onset, it may be possible to point to exceptions, but as a general rule, that's not true.

I'll leave it at that for the moment. I want the minister to respond to that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody is referring to a submission which was made to me dated March 1, 1985. The interesting comment in here is the opening comment on the first page: "Moreover, we conceded the desirability of revisions to the public education funding system." That's clear. But as we go through the brief, they have pointed out some of the difficulties which they incur. They're supportive of the system which has been put in place, and not the concept of pigeonholing at all. What they are really arguing about is the number of dollars which have been made available. They specifically pointed out the difficulties which they as officials were going to have with awards if made or when eventually made. It is not any secret that the boards were in a difficult position. We as a government had made it abundantly clear and had said for a period of several months that there was no additional funding for public education to accommodate salary increases. Their concern was this: if there is a salary increase, if the argument of inability to pay is not accepted or that would cause some difficulty, the answer was to provide to the CSP office two criteria — one criterion being the ability to pay or inability to pay, the other being the levels of service.

The level of service which we put in and appended as a schedule to the Treasury Board directive was the number of teachers which the framework would generate within the district. It was very simply put that if in fact a school district was desirous of paying compensation that would reduce the number of staff beneath the level which we felt ought to be within the district, then a penalty would be prescribed.

It seems to me that the information that has been passed back to me now by both secretary-treasurers and superintendents is that this directive has gone some considerable distance to resolve the dilemma in which they were finding themselves. It also had the real value, in my view, of doing what I think the majority of teachers really wanted: to preserve jobs and eliminate the anxiety among teachers at the lower end of the scale as far as seniority is concerned and preserve the jobs for them.

I notice the member is very anxious to get up again, so I'll sit down.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I heard the way that was flagged: this was done to preserve jobs, and the referendum idea was an opportunity for people to raise more money in their district. The whole thing smacks of gobbledygook and ad hockery. If it were the case that you were going to ignore the Compensation Stabilization Act, why did you let boards and teachers spend a million and a half dollars through a phony arbitration process all fall? Why did you let them go that route? What happened is that you were in a real box, and your Minister of Finance marched in and saved your bacon. It was a brilliant kind of move. It was so brilliant and so consultative that a week ago, after the directive was made, the boards still hadn't seen it.

I'm going to let my colleague talk for a moment, but I just want to clear up something about participation rates, because I said I had the material. We'll argue the other one again.

The Public Sector Restraint Act, the interim financing act, the Compensation Stabilization Act and this latest move are a legal jungle, and you were rescued out of it. You were rescued by one of the natives. Nevertheless, it was brilliant. But it wasn't to save jobs; it was to save you embarrassment. The whole thing has been an ad hoc mess from beginning to end, and I think everybody knows that. The boards still don't know what they're supposed to be doing; they haven't been told.

Anyway, to cool it on that one, I have here the participation rates from Stats Canada, and they're the '83-84 figures. I gave the participation rates in post-secondary as about 10 percent; that's universities. For the universities for British Columbia it's 10.5 percent '83-84. For the community colleges for B.C. it's 11.5 percent. But the minister doesn't use that figure at all. I hope he's getting some advice from his college expert. He uses the high school graduates; he's not using per capita figures. He says 35 percent or 45 percent of high school graduates. That's a totally different figure from

[ Page 5671 ]

the participation rates based on a per capita figure. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

Anyway, it's 11.5 percent for colleges in British Columbia; in Quebec it's 32 percent; Ontario, 14 percent; P.E.I., 10 percent. Some of the others are worse: 3.7 percent in Saskatchewan; Manitoba, 4.7 percent; Ontario, 14 percent. Ours is 11.5 percent; that's for community colleges '83-84. Unless because of the turndown there are more kids knocking on the doors, then it hasn't gone up that much in the last two years. As far as the universities are concerned, the 10.5 percent is the '83-84 figure. I think it has dropped a bit since that point.

I'm not going to say any more at the moment, because I want to give my colleague an opportunity at this topic as well.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll be a few seconds. I just want to raise something in here, when we're talking about the million and a half bucks involved in arbitration. The local teacher associations and boards can freely negotiate their own settlement. There is nothing to compel them to go to arbitration. But I'll tell you what happened. Here we have a statement which comes from the B.C. Teachers' Federation, "Service Levels and Collective Bargaining," entitled: "The Spring Campaign." You know, I find it incredible. On page 2, paragraph (b), the headline is: "Free Collective Bargaining for Teachers." That's fair enough; that's something which they're looking for. But one of the subheadings under (c) says the following: "Request locals agree not to negotiate settlements." A straight directive from the executive of the BCTF telling the local teachers' associations, who live in the community and work with their boards: "Don't you negotiate any settlement."

AN HON. MEMBER: Force it to arbitration.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's it. Every time. And this is sometimes why the idleness and the complaints that keep coming up about arbitration....

In addition there's another point, on page 3; have a look at this. This is what they referred to it as: "3. The un-bargaining campaign." This is the whole thrust. Well, voluntary settlements are.... There's nobody precluding them from doing that, but why? That's the campaign which is going on.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.